Just to clarify: What is on the table here is shortening the alliance name size limit from 20 letters to 13 letters. This will not retroactively shorten alliance names which are already in the Hall of Fame, it will simply prevent future alliances from being given a name longer than 13 letters, thus guaranteeing that they will fit.

Can confirm that some kind of maximum army size cap isn’t something that would be possible to enforce with our current client. Windancer’s ideas seem pretty feasible – I especially like the idea of an era with expanding alliance size.

As a general rule, the slower a world is, the more people are able to play it competitively.
If a world only has two (or less) actual competitive alliances (intending to win and actually active/organised enough to pull it off) then it is a pretty pointless world.
Kongregate does not have enough people who are competitive at a 6 tick speed to make enough alliances for the eras to be interesting.

On the ideas:
There are no alternate mars maps. I could run a small mars, but it’d have to be lke the Earth special event, where I draw a line in garrisons and relocate anybody outside of the ‘play area’.

Zombie: Kinda feels like a havoc event to me. The idea of forcing people into alliances seems distinctly un-battledawnish. Also, incredibly difficult for an admin to police (as we can’t prevent people for leaving alliances) – There’s a gameplay issue too. ‘Zombies’ can’t have conquers (as they are liberated upon joining the alliance) meaning the bigger the zombie alliance gets, the bigger the remaining ‘humans’ conquer pools would get (conquering the recently-added zombies)

Lightning round: I’m wary of any idea that has no actual gameplay change and simply asks me to release more resources/relics/crystals. The actual gameplay isn’t going to change, just the number of zeroes next to the winners names. It feels pointless (and a bit harsh to screw over the established HoF) to create an ‘inflated score era’ with no actual gameplay change.

We, uh, we use the same graphics in nc as we did in oc. We literally copied them over, with a few additions (like farm outposts – which no longer exist) and a few omissions (barracks).

Only the UI has changed, and that was necessary because a lot of the OC UI was broken or not fit for purpose (remember the ‘forums’ that were built into the alliance pages?)

I think you guys are seeing OC through rose tinted glasses. It really, really sucked.

Edit: Also worth noting that we had a UI change in the last 6 months. Before that, nc was almost visually identical to oc (at least until you open windows and menus ingame and see the stuff that got moved/removed/changed, like that awful alliance forum)

I think the only noticeable changed from oc to nc UI were the addition of the boost button and the moving of the broadcast bar from the top of the screen to the bottom.

Out of curiosity, what was so good about the old client that you want back.

Old client itself was objectively terrible. There was almost no cheat detection for admins to use, the game crashed a lot, the SERVERS would crash over 1k players, the servers would freeze up or crash when large numbers of units were moved at once, donating was COMPLETELYUNCAPPED so people could buy havoc resources in an hour if they really wanted to. 10 relic wins were almost impossible due to relocation passing, and the coding of the client itself was so bad that updates and bug fixes were completely impossible.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »